Talk:Paul McCartney discography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The Singles charts listed here SHOULD have Paul McCartney's chart performance on major US charts like U.S. Adult Contemporary (AC) and U.S. Adult Alternative Songs (AAA), where he consistently appears to this day. To continue to put dashes for his singles in the U.S. Top 40 charts, where NO legacy artist has a chance in "bloody hell" of appearing, is accurate. However, it does not represent a complete picture of chart performance in the U.S. where music formats are very silo'd and fragmented. Other major artists have these "alternatove format" charts on their Wikipedia page. Whoever has decided that they are the "king" of the Paul McCartney discography page and continues to delete these charts is off-base, to put it mildly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seymore love (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair to list those, but only in a separate column. Songs that were hits on the AC or rock charts should not be listed in the column simply headed "US." It's misleading at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.97.34 (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wings?[edit]

This list says it has his discography with Wings, and it doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.35.237 (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chart positions[edit]

There are so many chart positions on here that are not correct. For example, on "Mull of Kintyre" it was listed that it went to #3 in the US, when it really went to #33. The singles and the albums for the most part are all wrong.

Please remember to sign your contributions --Paploo 23:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-album tracks[edit]

Is there a format to putting in information for non-album tracks? There is much information that I could give, but don't know to whom I should give it. --Paploo 23:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messy[edit]

I don't like the structure of this. I'd rather it be strictly chronological and look more like The Beatles discography or The KLF discography. See also the question from Paploo above. --kingboyk 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:FiremanRushesCover.jpg[edit]

Image:FiremanRushesCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images[edit]

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. -Mask? 23:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wings? Beatles?[edit]

Why are his albums with Wings here but not his albums with the Beatles? It is inconsistent.

Especially those albums credited only to 'Wings' (and perhaps also those credited to 'Paul McCartney and Wings'?) should not be here. Helpsloose 22:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inconsistent. Wings was Paul McCartney; the Beatles was a collaborative band. Virtually all major reference works list McCartney's work with Wings together with his officially solo work. None of them put the Beatles with it. We should follow suit. john k (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborations[edit]

There are missing items under his work as producer, composer and session musician.

Off the top of my head, his work with Apple artists includes work with Jackie Lomax and Mary Hopkin, which is not mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.165.196 (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music video directors[edit]

Anyone know the rest of these names? --Discographer (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction[edit]

Reconstruction on Paul McCartney discography to begin soon... --Discographer (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The changes since October 1 were going in a bad direction. This discography should not include any Beatle material; there is a page for that already. Also, material should not be split off into subpages. Time to start over. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Wings/Beatles inconsistency mentioned above and the reason why Wings material should be included and Beatles material omitted:
  1. The line between Paul McCartney and Wings was blurred during the entire Wings tenure. McCartney was the founder and leader of the band and one of the three people who were in the band for the entire time. Separating the purely-McCartney material from the Wings material would yield two separate discographies with large overlaps and challenges deciding where to put some records.
  2. No such problems exit with The Beatles: there is no overlap, for example.
  3. The Beatles have a complicated discography and we don't need to copy any of it here.
— John Cardinal (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Unnecessary Presently, there are redundant articles at List of Paul McCartney maxi-singles and List of Paul McCartney musical contributions and appearances. There is neither a precedent nor a necessity for splitting up his discography into these more particular lists (especially one reserved solely for maxi-singles!), so any content that is not present in this article from those two should be merged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose for List of Paul McCartney maxi-singles – Adding release details about singles and maxi-singles is counter to discography guidelines and conventions. I don't agree with those guidelines, but as things stand now, if there is any hope of making this a feature list, those details would have to be removed. I removed a lot of those details a few weeks ago, adding the details to the song articles if they weren't there already. At that time, I asked a question on the discography style page to get some guidance about the situation described below. Unfortunately, no one responded.

  • Adding release details about singles and maxi-singles is counter to discography guidelines and conventions.
  • It's not always possible to move the details to song articles because not all songs have articles.
  • Whether or not the details are available in song articles, if they are not in the discography, where can the reader see a summary?
  • Adding separate lists (like the ones you propose merging here) seems like a bad alternative: it spreads the information around and is essentially splitting up the discography to get around the rules/guidelines. The existence of such articles and links to them from the discography would probably also interfere with a featured list review.

Given a choice between (A) dropping the details by deleting the other list articles or (B) merging them here and thus making it harder to get this article to featured list status, I'd choose A. I don't like that choice, but I don't think it's likely the discography guidelines will be changed and I think it's more important to get the list to featured list status than it is to gather the release details in one place. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on List of Paul McCartney musical contributions and appearances – I think most if not all of that content is in the discography now. I changed it to a table format a few weeks ago. I am not sure if such content is appropriate for a discography. If not, then it should be a separate list. If it is appropriate, then I'd support a merge though I strongly recommend keeping the tabular format. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I´m working in Paul McCartneys´singles discography page, like other artist like Michael Jackson oneMike-hilal (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

I've re-joined this discography from two pieces. McCartney's discography covering Wings and solo work does not need to be split by albums, singles, maxi-singles, etc. One discography is far more useful for readers and the page is not excessively long. Any such change is a major change and should be discussed here, and consensus reached, before it is implemented. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chart positions Paul McCartney albums[edit]

I noticed that in the table with the chart positions for his albums the U.S. chart positions are listed first. Considering Paul McCartney is an English musician, I'd suggest putting the UK chart positions first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.52.100 (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that Canadian chart-positions are not columned in the stats but Canadian sales certifications appear as appropriate. Is there a problem with obtaining the Canadian chart stats? If not, can these be marked for addition as they're certainly missed here among other territories' stats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelk xsx (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a good Citation for "Pipes of Peace" and "Ebony and Ivory" as UK #1s[edit]

I can only verify "Mull of Kintyre" as a UK number one for Paul, and at least one source says he only had one #1 in the UK solo, but these other two songs claim to have been #1 in the UK on their respective Wiki pages and in Pauls WP Discography. GabeMc (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wings[edit]

The Wings material should be included here. I've tried a couple of times to revert, but it doesn't seem to be taking. But it's just totally ridiculous not to include it. Wings was basically a McCartney solo work, and reference works tend to group them together. That somebody created a Wings discography page is really neither here nor there. I'm not sure whether that should exist, but the Wings stuff should absolutely be listed here. john k (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wings has its own discography page, and there is a link to it in the article. That is enough. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not enough. As I said before, Wings' discography is almost always included in lists of McCartney's, and it is generally agreed that Wings was basically a McCartney solo project in all but name. Not including Wings albums and singles in this list gives a false impression of McCartney's solo career, and as such is actively misleading to readers. There is absolutely no harm in including it, and excluding it can be misleading. If duplication is the only reason to exclude it, the better resolution would be to redirect the Wings article here, not to exclude the Wings material from this article. john k (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave for you to figure that out. Have fun. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coming Up[edit]

I have always accepted the prevailing thought that in the United States, the live version of "Coming Up" was number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. While there are reliable sources that support this, an examination of the actual chart indicates otherwise. When the record debuted on the Hot 100 the week ending April 26, 1980, it was listed as "COMING UP – Paul McCartney" which was the solo, studio version on the A-side. It continued to be listed that way up through July 12, when the record was in the number one position for its third and final week (view chart). The following week, July 19, the record appeared on the Hot 100 as "COMING UP (Live At Glasgow) – Paul McCartney & Wings" but it had now dropped to the number two position (view chart). The live version continued to be listed for the next eight weeks as it descended the chart. Generally speaking, I think it is reasonable to say the live version was more popular in the U.S., but to state that it was number one on the Billboard Hot 100 seems inaccurate, if not blatantly false. Piriczki (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the world tonight?[edit]

what happen with this video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.155.223 (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

save the child (single)? liverpool oratoria[edit]

what happen with this single — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.201.110 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fix to 2010s album table[edit]

Could someone please fix the 2010s albums table so there is a "—" in the certifications column? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Party Party[edit]

somewhen on 1990 or 89 there was e Single "Party Party". which had no B-Side (there was an engravement fitting zu "flowers in the dirt" instead. Song was written by Paul Linda and 3 or 4 others (I think McCollugh was one of the nemes mentioned). I owned that single several years till I sold it to a collecor . At the time i bought it in a Music-store, i remeber also same single as a 3 CD-Single. Song sounds very muche like this [1] but in that studio-version which lastet arround 5 minutes or so, it was plaed faster and slightly different. Does anyone know more bout that single? --Münzberg (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wings discography[edit]

I know that Wings is basically McCartney in all but name but that band has it's own discography page so I can't see a reason to include it here as well, especially as it is linked at the top of the page alongside the Beatles as see also. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then should there be separate discographies for Paul McCartney, Paul & Linda McCartney, Wings, and Paul McCartney & Wings? It is important to remember that the members of Wings were employees of McCartney and that all of these records were made under McCartney's recording contract with EMI, and later Columbia. McCartney could have put whatever name he chose to on these records. For instance, he considered putting out Band on the Run under just "Paul McCartney" as evidenced by the name on the spine of the jacket but changed it to "Paul McCartney & Wings." Similarly, he has expressed regret that he didn't release Electric Arguments under his own name instead of the Fireman. The point is that these are all McCartney records whatever name he chooses to put on them. The creation of the Wings discography was an ill-conceived idea to begin with and it should have been changed to a re-direct long ago. Duplicating, moving or re-arranging content without adding anything of substance is not particularly helpful and does little to improve the articles in question. Piriczki (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not start a consensus about deleting the wings discography article and having them grouped like that on Paul McCartney's discography page (have them grouped in a separate section from the other studio albums under the title (albums released as Wings.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that such distinctions are immaterial and grouping them that way, whether in separate articles or separate sections within an article, is pointless and unnecessary. Again, re-arranging existing content to suit your personal preferences is not constructive editing. Piriczki (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McCartney's musical career?[edit]

I've just noticed that an article previously rated a B, Paul McCartney's musical career, has now become a redirect to this discography with all its text deleted (obviously). I'm kinda shocked that this was never discussed on the article's talk page – the rationale given for the change was WP:CFORK. I can well imagine there was some overlap between Paul McCartney#Musical career and the former music career article, but (to my mind anyway) an article dedicated to McCartney's career is a valid inclusion here, and WP:CFORK would only be applicable if such an article were underdeveloped and offered little that wasn't already covered in McCartney's biographical article.

I've long considered writing an article titled George Harrison's musical career. When working on his song and album articles, I find much of the background details are so general that it would be useful to have a separate article on Harrison's musical career, because there's simply not the space to include a general discussion at George Harrison. So I'm wondering: a) are others okay with "Paul McCartney's musical career" having been binned (i.e. did you know/notice?!); and b) is the idea of having a dedicated article on an artist's musical career innately WP:CFORK, or is it just when the content happens to mirror what can be found in the artist's bio article? JG66 (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Paul McCartney discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Wings[edit]

Because Wings discography exists, Wings releases should not be on here. This page should be exclusive to his solo discography solely. I plan on removing all Wings material unless anyone has any objections. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I object wholeheartedly. The earlier post made by Piriczki was perfect in explaining why the Wings discography should remain here. McCartney75 (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that since there is a Wings discography page, the information shouldn't appear here. Or, at least, the current approach doesn't make sense – we should either delete Wings discography, or remove all Wings content from this page and retain the separate band discography. JG66 (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JG66 Thank you. It doesn't make sense for both to be here. Whether Wings was solely McCartney or just a backing band is irrelevant, the fact that Wings discography exists means it shouldn't be here. If that page were to be redirected then both can be here but it exists, so this page should be just his solo discography. – zmbro (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daumier's Law; "Clean Machine"[edit]

I have examined this otherwise thorough discography and have found no reference to either McCartney's short film score for the 1992 DAUMIER'S LAW or the 1999 "Clean Machine" instrumental (initially released on the Linda McCartney Racing Team website). Are these eligible for listing here? Mark R.Y.2016

Regarding the instrumental, if you can provide a source then it can go up, if it was officially released. As for the score, if it wasn't released as a soundtrack album/EP, and the music was only featured in the film, then it wouldn't go in any discography table, but maybe there could be a mention made for it. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Love Is Strange" single?[edit]

I remember hearing a version of the old Mickey and Sylvia/Peaches and Herb/Buddy Holly song "Love Is Strange" on a Washington, DC, area radio station in the early 1970s. And this song and a presumed B-side, "I Am Your Singer", are both on the box set of 7-inch singles released in the past couple of years. Why isn't this single shown in the singles discography here? Should someone add it? It would be a non-LP single, I suppose.

I've never mastered the technique of signing my stuff on Talk pages. I am RSLitman, and I am posting this at approximately 9:45 pm Eastern Daylight Savings Time on April 27, 2024 (not 02:45 UTC on 30 April 2024). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSLitman (talk • contribs) 01:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_McCartney_discography&oldid=1221513332"